diagnosticar_pjeoffice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is non-invasive ('sem clicar ou enviar dados') – a key safety trait for agents deciding between diagnostics and active actions. It could add more, but the essential side-effect profile is well covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the main action, then supplies the safety qualifier. No wasted words, no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers what the tool does and its non-invasive nature, and an output schema exists to define returns. However, it omits context such as prerequisites (e.g., whether PJeOffice must be installed/running), what the diagnostic results should be used for, or how this relates to sibling diagnostic steps – notable gaps for a 0-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning since there is nothing to supply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Verifica' – checks), specific resources ('porta local e botões SSO'), and a behavioral mode ('passivamente... sem clicar ou enviar dados'). This clearly distinguishes it from active tools like testar_login or abrir_login_certificado, though it does not explicitly name any sibling differentiator.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as testar_login, verificar_login_certificado, or diagnosticar_ambiente. The 'passive' wording implies it is a safe pre-check, but the agent must infer that; no explicit condition or exclusion is stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.